Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 131 of 323 (808364)
05-10-2017 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 11:07 AM


Re: Notice how I always answer queries
Davidjay writes:
Do you not remember that, you were the one that first starting talking about 'Selection' as if it was a God and that it was not random like mutations.
We just gave you two examples of natural selection that produce non-random distributions of phenotypes, no gods involved.
Every time you refuse to address those examples you lose the debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 11:07 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 132 of 323 (808365)
05-10-2017 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 11:24 AM


Re: Notice how I always answer queries
Davidjay writes:
I have responded 31 times already, and explained by point 31 times already, nevertheless lets look at your theory that they need their evolution comments answered.....
In which of those 31 posts do you think you logically and systematically disprove natural selection? I would be happy to respond to any of those posts as long as they contain a logical argument instead of just ridicule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 11:24 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(3)
Message 135 of 323 (808371)
05-10-2017 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 11:44 AM


Re: Color is not a new KIND
Davidjay writes:
I repeat... color is not an example of evolution making new species.
Speciation is not the topic of this thread. Natural selection is.
This is why your other topics are not promoted, because you refuse to discuss your own topics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 11:44 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 139 of 323 (808424)
05-10-2017 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 3:21 PM


Re: Color is not a new KIND
Davidjay writes:
If you win, you lose. If you say and supposedly prove that color is a NEW KIND, then you lose your argument and debate, concerning your theory of evolution is not racist.
Color is not a new KIND, all people are equal despite the color of skin variation...... racism is vile and is an imagination of natioanlistic people and those that want to start trouble and wars. Evolution supports their supposed differentiation. Evolution is a racist doctrine.
Moth color change selected out by birds because the moths blend in better to their surroundings and are less likely to be seen, is an adaption from the Lord for the Moth. The moth is still a moth, and the color change in no way means it has changed its genetics or evolved into a NEW KIND.
That is an insane desperate unscientific lie of evolutionists to try and suggest that moth color shows evolutionary change.
The God of Selection has been slain, she is dead....
This thread is not about racism or speciation. This thread is about natural selection. We have offered two examples of natural selection. Please address them.
If you need help understanding what natural selection is, please ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 3:21 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 149 of 323 (808520)
05-11-2017 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by CRR
05-11-2017 7:15 AM


Re: ring species
CRR writes:
Dogs are an example of how genetic diversity can be lost.
The mutations leading to black coat color in pocket mice is an example of how mutations increase genetic diversity.
Another example is that the bacteria in Lenski's LTEE have reduced their genomes, discarding genes that aren't beneficial in the experiment environment.
Those bacterial lineages also have mutations not found in the original parent stock, and some of those mutations were fixed in the population through positive natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 7:15 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 6:09 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 174 of 323 (808712)
05-12-2017 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by CRR
05-11-2017 5:58 PM


Re: ring species
CRR writes:
Darwin used many examples of animal breeding to support his arguments for natural selection. Since humans are part of nature then deliberate selection by humans is a form of natural selection.
Darwin's point was that there was a natural process that existed outside of human influence that had been operating on species for millions of years which was his explanation for why species were different from each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 5:58 PM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 175 of 323 (808714)
05-12-2017 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by CRR
05-11-2017 6:09 PM


Re: ring species
CRR writes:
Mutations can be selected for and fixed in populations . . .
It would appear that you accept natural selection, correct?
. . . but are they information adding?
That is completely irrelevant to the field of biology and the theory of evolution. What I have found is that the process of evolution can produce all of the biodiversity we see today from a universal common ancestor without needing to increase information as defined by creationists. All you guys do is define information in such a way that evolution doesn't need to produce it.
It's a bit like someone saying that a baseball has to travel 1,000 feet before it is considered a home run, all the while forgetting that all it has to do is get over the fence.
Human adult lactose tolerance is an example of a mutation that has spread but has not increased genetic information.
Then evolution doesn't need to increase information as you define it in order to produce the biodiversity we see today.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 6:09 PM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 176 of 323 (808716)
05-12-2017 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by CRR
05-11-2017 9:35 PM


Re: Lactase and Nylonase
CRR writes:
All mammals are born lactose tolerant so they can digest their mother's milk. This normally switches off after weaning. Human adult lactose tolerance is simply a case of a broken switch. Lactose intolerance - creation.com.
Then broken switches, as you define it, can result in evolution.
"This is the story of a pre-existing enzyme with a low level of promiscuous nylonase activity, which improved its activity toward nylon by first one, then another selectable mutation. In other words this is a completely plausible case of gene duplication, mutation, and selection operating on a pre-existing enzyme to improve a pre-existing low-level activity, exactly the kind of event that Meyer and Axe specifically acknowledge as a possibility, given the time and probabilistic resources available. Indeed, the origin of nylonase actually provides a nice example of the optimization of a pre-existing fold’s function, not the innovation or creation of a novel fold." https://www.evolutionnews.org/...agination-and-facts-collide
Then evolution doesn't need novel folds for every adaptations. Thanks for yet another example of evolution in action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 9:35 PM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 177 of 323 (808717)
05-12-2017 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by CRR
05-12-2017 9:42 AM


Re: Lactase and Nylonase
CRR writes:
There are several mutations are cause a loss of genetic information but which have a net benefit in particular circumstance. Lactose tolerance is one. So are many cases of antibiotic and insecticide resistance. So to some extent is sickle cell trait.
Then this means that evolution can occur with losses in genetic information, as you define it. So much for needing an increase in genetic information.
Evolution by losing genetic information is downhill and would be a valid argument if you are saying that bacteria evolved from people but it doesn't work if you propose that people evolved from bacteria.
You would also argue that human evolution went downhill as it proceeded from our ancestor shared with chimps. Evolution can also occur while going downhill, as you define it.
You can't seem to understand that you are just defining yourself out of the argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by CRR, posted 05-12-2017 9:42 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 178 of 323 (808718)
05-12-2017 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Davidjay
05-12-2017 8:46 AM


Re: NO mutations away from mothers milk..miracle
Babies were born as is, since their creation.....
The Lord or if you like their designer designed them to be able to process mothers milk because it is BY FAR the best for them including the amazing abilities after giving birth, that makes mothers milk absolutely important and vital rather than cow milk and its economic profit from manufacturers.....
Its by design.... no mutation put all those ingeedients in a mothers milk, to help her new born. Please study and learn about procreation and the miracle of birth and mothers milk.
No mutation has ever taken place, we still are the same as in the BEGINNING.
Yes, GMOS etc from man are screwing up people after birth for economic sake of the rich and powerful. But no mutation has ever taken place that makes cows milk more beneficial than a mothers milk.
No selection process has taken place..... no mutations have been induced by the environment as we have already determined that beneficial or harmful mutations are not induced, and are suppsoedly only at random.
We cant change horses in mid stream with every new thread and discount old truths we have already established HERE.
We need to be consistent, and have principles.... not flip flop with every new responses or responses.
The god of selection is dead, because no beneficial mutations have ever occured by chance or by non random selection. She is dead, and beneficial mutations never existed
Still not a single coherent argument against natural selection. Go figure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 8:46 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 180 of 323 (808720)
05-12-2017 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Davidjay
05-12-2017 9:51 AM


Re: What changes have their been in new babies from old babies ?
Davidjay writes:
So tell us and explain to us, evolutionists how todays babies are different than babies in the past.
Tell us what new beneficial mutations have occured in babies that have been selected by your god of selection, that makes new babies genetically different than old babies or the original human babies.
Dont be afraid just explain yourself, you are in your congregation, so have faith and speak up... and testify about the changes.
Thanks I am hoping to hear from you, and hoping you dont run from this question as per usual.
Tell us why you think we find black mice in areas with black lava rocks and brown mice in areas with brown desert dirt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 9:51 AM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 11:33 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 184 of 323 (808734)
05-12-2017 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Davidjay
05-12-2017 11:33 AM


Re: What changes have their been in new babies from old babies ?
Answer the question and keep my discussion alive ?
Deal with the topic?
Why do you think black mice are found in black rocks and brown mice are found in the light brown desert?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 11:33 AM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 1:26 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 186 of 323 (808744)
05-12-2017 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Davidjay
05-12-2017 1:26 PM


Re: What changes have their been in new babies from old babies ?
Deal with the question..
I agree. Deal with my question on natural selection.
Why do you think black mice are found in black rocks and brown mice are found in the light brown desert?
You evolutionists have talked about these supposed beneficial mutations, so discuss one, state one ?
I already did talk about beneficial mutations, the mutations that produce black fur in pocket mice. You refuse to address it.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 1:26 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 215 of 323 (808981)
05-15-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by CRR
05-14-2017 8:09 PM


Re: Does the theory of evolution require a gain of information?
CRR writes:
Does the theory of evolution require a gain of copious quantities of genetic information?
Yes it does.
That's just a bare assertion. Until you define what information is and show that evolution has to produce genetic information it will remain a bare assertion.
Just so, even if it can't currently be quantified no reasonable person doubts that this genetic information exists.
Your whole schtick is to never define what an increase in information would be so that you can deny any and all evidence. It's not that you can't define genetic information, it's that you won't.
Conclusion: The Theory of Evolution;
Has a direction. It is attempting to explain microbes to man, not the reverse
Requires the development of multicellularity, specialised tissues, organs, and complex body plans
This development requires the production of new genes and genetic information; in copious quantities
The vast, vast majority of species are still microbes, demonstrating that evolution does not have a direction.
Evolution does not require the development of multicellularity, specialized tissues, organs, or complex body plans as demonstrated by the billions of species without those things.
All of the biodiversity we see today only requires the modification of genes and DNA that are already present which you have already disqualified as being new genetic information. Therefore, evolution does not require new genetic information as you define it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by CRR, posted 05-14-2017 8:09 PM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 216 of 323 (808983)
05-15-2017 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by CRR
05-14-2017 8:50 PM


Re: Lactase and Nylonase
CRR writes:
You don't seem to understand what is actually happening to the gene, at least in the case of lactase. There is no new gene. At best there is a new allele of the gene.
Why isn't that new genetic information?
Even in the case of Nylonase it is not as once proposed a new gene created by a frameshift mutation but only a duplication and fine tuning of an existing gene that already had some activity on nylon.
Now you are redefining beneficial mutations as "fine tuning". Such is the worn out strategy of creationist denial.
There is a metabolic cost of maintaining production of an enzyme that is no longer being used. That's why it is normal for lactase production to be switched off after weaning.
Mutations in the gene promoter allows the gene to be turned on after weaning. These mutations were selected for in populations with domesticated bovines.
If that is not an increase in genetic information, then evolution doesn't need to produce genetic information in order to produce the biodiversity we see today.
The Evolutionary Informatics Lab is a group of STEM (science/technology/engineer/math) professionals who focus on the role of information in the modeling and analysis of evolutionary processes and related phenomena.
They also provide research grants and fellowships and publish in peer reviewed scientific publications as well as publishing Bio-Complexity journal.
And yet, with all of that activity, they still can't produce a quantitative measure for genetic information?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by CRR, posted 05-14-2017 8:50 PM CRR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024